Upward or out? I've got to know

[CM Punk]

I find myself staying in the office more and more each week. My colleagues are getting the "premier" assignments, that is if you consider covering 17-year-olds playing games premier. But I'm not bothered by it. I'm working on bigger assignments, better stories, actual news items that deal with trustees, board members, major construction, millions of dollars, grown-up ****.

It's not just that. I'm running the office while the boss is away. I'm making management decisions on when to cut off writers on deadline. I can be trusted to get the job done, and we all know it. I'm also getting a lot of flack for stuff, just like a manager. I'm getting the ass whipping from the top brassp when things go FUBAR, whether things go FUBAR on my watch or not.

I'm wondering, even in turbulent times for my industry - and many others, not to diminish their plight - if I should ask for a title. Assistant editor. It's nothing more than a resume highlight, but it would be nice to be acknowledged for nearly five years of service. It would be nice if my seniority was established (even though staying here the longest is like being the smartest retarded person in the room). It's practically my job right now anyway.

Either my tenure is valued or it's not. Either I've invested five years into upward movement or I've wasted five years with no internal payoff and must start from scratch with a career change. I've got to know.

 

[buckweaver]

Never hurts to ask. But if they offer to give you a "raise" and put you on salary, tell 'em to keep you on hourly. Lot of "promotions" come with that catch, and you end up with less money than you would've had if you weren't salaried. Don't get fooled by it (unless they really do give you a massive raise.)

When there's not much incentive to keep doing a good job in this business, a resume boost can go a long way. Good luck.

 

[Cadet]

They may see this strictly as you asking for more money. While money is good, if all you're looking for is the title, say so up front. They may hesitate to give you the title if they think it's about money. And the title will go farther in the long run.

I echo Buckdub with his take on hourly vs. salary. You don't want them to make you salary.

 

[Barsuk]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent on the hourly vs. salary debate, and here's why: One of the new trends in "cutbacks" is to move hourly employees to 37.5-hour work weeks (we've seen several McClatchy shops do this in recent months), which basically amounts to a 6 percent pay cut. If you can get a salary that pays you the same as you're making now as an hourly employee (don't forget to include any overtime you're getting, if you work at one of those rare places that still pay overtime), you might soon view it as a 6 percent raise, which is virtually unheard of for a newspaper employee these days.

Something to think about.

 

[JakeandElwood]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent on the hourly vs. salary debate, and here's why: One of the new trends in "cutbacks" is to move hourly employees to 37.5-hour work weeks (we've seen several McClatchy shops do this in recent months), which basically amounts to a 6 percent pay cut. If you can get a salary that pays you the same as you're making now as an hourly employee (don't forget to include any overtime you're getting, if you work at one of those rare places that still pay overtime), you might soon view it as a 6 percent raise, which is virtually unheard of for a newspaper employee these days.

Something to think about.

But what stops them from cutting your salary 6% down the road?

 

[Batman]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent on the hourly vs. salary debate, and here's why: One of the new trends in "cutbacks" is to move hourly employees to 37.5-hour work weeks (we've seen several McClatchy shops do this in recent months), which basically amounts to a 6 percent pay cut. If you can get a salary that pays you the same as you're making now as an hourly employee (don't forget to include any overtime you're getting, if you work at one of those rare places that still pay overtime), you might soon view it as a 6 percent raise, which is virtually unheard of for a newspaper employee these days.

Something to think about.

Doesn't the shorter work week also screw with your benefits? At 37.5 hours, are you considered part-time and not eligible for them?

 

[buckweaver]

Doesn't the shorter work week also screw with your benefits? At 37.5 hours, are you considered part-time and not eligible for them?

Only if the employer changes your status to part-time. The Fair Labor Standards Act does not make a definition for FTE/PTE; it's up to each employer to determine.

The way McClatchy and others (some Singleton rags) have been doing it, 37.5 hours/week is still full-time. Benefits aren't affected. You just don't get a 30-minute break time added onto your daily schedule; it's included instead.

 

[Barsuk]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent on the hourly vs. salary debate, and here's why: One of the new trends in "cutbacks" is to move hourly employees to 37.5-hour work weeks (we've seen several McClatchy shops do this in recent months), which basically amounts to a 6 percent pay cut. If you can get a salary that pays you the same as you're making now as an hourly employee (don't forget to include any overtime you're getting, if you work at one of those rare places that still pay overtime), you might soon view it as a 6 percent raise, which is virtually unheard of for a newspaper employee these days.

Something to think about.

But what stops them from cutting your salary 6% down the road?

Nothing, I guess, but it seems less likely for some reason.

 

[Cadet]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent on the hourly vs. salary debate, and here's why: One of the new trends in "cutbacks" is to move hourly employees to 37.5-hour work weeks (we've seen several McClatchy shops do this in recent months), which basically amounts to a 6 percent pay cut. If you can get a salary that pays you the same as you're making now as an hourly employee (don't forget to include any overtime you're getting, if you work at one of those rare places that still pay overtime), you might soon view it as a 6 percent raise, which is virtually unheard of for a newspaper employee these days.

Something to think about.

I understand what you're getting at, but here's a key difference: When you're an hourly employee and your hours are up, you walk out the door. You have no choice, and management has no choice if they don't want to pay you overtime. It's the law.

If you're a salary employee and you try to walk out the door after 40 hours, you get yelled at. If you try to walk out the door at 50 hours, your loyalty is questioned. If you try to walk out the door after 60 hours, you're told you'll never get ahead. All while taking home the exact same amount of money. They can abuse your time as much as they want.

 

[mike311gd]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent on the hourly vs. salary debate, and here's why: One of the new trends in "cutbacks" is to move hourly employees to 37.5-hour work weeks (we've seen several McClatchy shops do this in recent months), which basically amounts to a 6 percent pay cut. If you can get a salary that pays you the same as you're making now as an hourly employee (don't forget to include any overtime you're getting, if you work at one of those rare places that still pay overtime), you might soon view it as a 6 percent raise, which is virtually unheard of for a newspaper employee these days.

Something to think about.

I understand what you're getting at, but here's a key difference: When you're an hourly employee and your hours are up, you walk out the door. You have no choice, and management has no choice if they don't want to pay you overtime. It's the law.

If you're a salary employee and you try to walk out the door after 40 hours, you get yelled at. If you try to walk out the door at 50 hours, your loyalty is questioned. If you try to walk out the door after 60 hours, you're told you'll never get ahead. All while taking home the exact same amount of money. They can abuse your time as much as they want.

She's right. It hurts when I sit down.

 

[FileNotFound]

As I was once told during management training at one of the nation's largest newspaper companies by an HR executive: "If you have an employee on salary, you OWN them."

 

[Barsuk]

You guys think the hourly employees at those aforementioned shops are walking out the door after 37.5 hours? I doubt it. Not if they want to come back next week.

 

[Cadet]

You guys think the hourly employees at those aforementioned shops are walking out the door after 37.5 hours? I doubt it. Not if they want to come back next week.

I understand. And trust me, I've done stretches both as hourly and as salary. The time I've put in as hourly doesn't even come close to what I've put in as salary. They can, and do, abuse you.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I was an assistant sports editor for the last three years I worked at my first paper. As part of the sales pitch, the paper had the outgoing executive editor, who was a father figure to many of us, tell me all of the advantages he saw.

"If you work 50 hours one week," he said, "you can try to work 30 hours the next week to balance it out. If you have to go to the doctor or the dentist or take some time off for something, you can."

When I tried to invoke those privileges after racking up about 100 hours of unpaid overtime in the first five months, I was rebuffed with extreme prejudice.

"You're salaried now," the sports editor and news editor said.

As a guy on the desk said, "Hey, you sold your soul to the devil."

A year later, a lawyer told me that unless I had management responsibilities to the extent that I could hire and fire people, the paper was required to pay any overtime I worked, even if I was on salary. I thought about it, but it didn't seem like I'd get anywhere pushing the issue.

 

[Stitch]

I was an assistant sports editor for the last three years I worked at my first paper. As part of the sales pitch, the paper had the outgoing executive editor, who was a father figure to many of us, tell me all of the advantages he saw.

"If you work 50 hours one week," he said, "you can try to work 30 hours the next week to balance it out. If you have to go to the doctor or the dentist or take some time off for something, you can."

When I tried to invoke those privileges after racking up about 100 hours of unpaid overtime in the first five months, I was rebuffed with extreme prejudice.

"You're salaried now," the sports editor and news editor said.

As a guy on the desk said, "Hey, you sold your soul to the devil."

A year later, a lawyer told me that unless I had management responsibilities to the extent that I could hire and fire people, the paper was required to pay any overtime I worked, even if I was on salary. I thought about it, but it didn't seem like I'd get anywhere pushing the issue.

Salaried means just that. You work 30 or 50 hours, you get paid the same amount of money.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

That's not the way this lawyer explained it to me, and he worked in labor law. He said generally speaking salaried means what you said, but he said if you're not a manager to the extent of having firing/hiring responsibility, you're owed anything you work over 40 hours in a week.

Maybe that was another way of saying I shouldn't have been on salary with the level of responsibility I had, which did not include the powers/duties described above. I couldn't hire or fire.

The law may have been changed since then. This was in the mid '90s.

 

[Freelance Hack]

That's not the way this lawyer explained it to me, and he worked in labor law. He said generally speaking salaried means what you said, but he said if you're not a manager to the extent of having firing/hiring responsibility, you're owed anything you work over 40 hours in a week.

Maybe that was another way of saying I shouldn't have been on salary with the level of responsibility I had, which did not include the powers/duties described above. I couldn't hire or fire.

The law may have been changed since then. This was in the mid '90s.

I've been salaried since 2000, including in my last full-time job as a journalist. It's been explained to me that as a "creative professional" my job might require more than 40 hours to do the work.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Yeah, I think that interpretation of the law became federal law early in the Bush administration. Before, it was a selective interpretation.

I found this on a Human Resources blog:

Employees with certain duties, who earn more than $455 per week, are exempt from the FLSA overtime laws. These include executives and managers who have significant decision-making responsibilities. Usually this includes the authority to hire, fire and supervise two or more other employees.

http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2007/11/05/oklahoma-overtime-and-salary/


It's from 2007, but I know it was the case in the mid '90s, the period I wrote about earlier.

 

[Freelance Hack]

Yeah, I think that interpretation of the law became federal law early in the Bush administration. Before, it was a selective interpretation.

It's a bull**** interpretation, but unless you're willing to do a Norma Rae on your desk/cube and pay the consequences, what can you do?

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Yes, which is why I just let it slide and moved to another paper when I had a good offer.